Guest blogger Glenn Gaetz: Understanding 'cruelty-free' eggs
- By
Image by iStock / allyclark
Humane. Organic. Cage-free. Free-range. Free-run. Cruelty-free. Natural. With so many different designations, it's hard to know which egg is the best egg
So, I decided to take a little journey down the path towards “cruelty-free” eggs and see what I could find out.
First, the environment or animal welfare are a concern, conventional eggs just don’t cut it. These chickens are packed into cages where they each get a space about the size of a letter-sized piece of paper. They go in a cage as soon as they are mature enough to lay eggs and never leave it until they are slaughtered at about two years at the oldest. This is a fraction of their natural lifespan, since chickens can live to be 10 to 15 years old.
Some promote cage-free eggs as a cruelty-free alternative. But how cruelty-free is it?
What do "free-range," "free-run" and "cage-free" really mean?
Labels such as “free-range” or “free-run” mean that the hens are not kept in cages. But they are often kept indoors at almost the same density as if they were in cages (which is basically the same as chickens raised for meat). There is also no regulation of these labels, which means that consumers have no way of knowing if the eggs that they are buying are really any better for the chickens than eggs from caged hens.
More on chickens
Backyard chickens in Vancouver – Read Granville Online's comprehensive coverage of the debate.
FAQs on backyard chicks – Check the City of Vancouver's backyard chickens page.
The BC Certified Organic label is a regulated, third-party certification system. These hens have access to the outdoors and have space to move. On the surface, this seems like an immense improvement over caged eggs. We’ve all seen pictures of hens outdoors in the sun. It looks like a very nice life.
But is it truly “cruelty-free”?
Unfortunately, no. All egg farms have to make money in order to keep operating. The rate of egg laying drops off when a hen is a couple of years old. When it starts to cost more to feed and care for a hen than can be made on her eggs, she is sent off to slaughter. Even though we know they can have a 10 to 15-year lifespan, even these chickens are killed at around two years of age.
The slaughter process is essentially the same whether the chickens have been raised organically or not. There are no farms that keep on feeding and caring for hens for the years after they stop laying eggs. It’s a simple matter of economics.
Also, we tend to forget about the systems that support the farms. There are few if any farms that have their own hatcheries. Farms get their chicks mailed to them at one day old from large hatcheries. There are no organic hatcheries in B.C., so chicks come from the same hatcheries as caged eggs. Because males don’t lay eggs, they are killed at one day old. Roughly half of the chicks born are male. For each and every hen that is laying eggs on a farm, there is a rooster who was killed at one day old because he was unnecessary.
How, then, can we ever hope to get “cruelty-free” eggs?
Backyard chickens not so humane
The Vancouver City Council voted recently to allow Vancouver residents to keep hens in their backyards. On the surface this would seem to offer the ultimate opportunity for “cruelty-free” eggs. But let’s take a closer look.
Let’s say we are allowed to have three hens and roosters will not be allowed. This means that no matter where we get our hens, there are still unwanted, surplus roosters who are going to be killed soon after they’ve hatched. This is an unfortunate fact of any kind of egg production system, even a backyard one.
Our three hens are going to stop laying as many eggs after a few years. When they go from one egg each per day to one egg each per week, what do we do? Do we replace them? Or do we keep them around as our pets? Will we send them off to slaughter? Will we kill them in our backyards ourselves?
The keeping of chickens in the city may also introduce many of the same issues as pet ownership does currently. This is one of the reasons why essentially all of the local animal welfare groups came out in opposition to allowing the keeping of chickens in Vancouver. Will people have to go out to Abbotsford to buy chickens, or will they be able to buy them in pet stores? Shelters all over the city are full of unwanted cats, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters and exotic birds. What is going to happen with unwanted chickens? If there is a demand for chickens in the city, there will be people trying to fill that demand. Will this mean that people will buy chickens on impulse? Will they be given as gifts?
There is also the risk of accidental roosters. Sexing of chicks is simply not 100 percent accurate, and so there will certainly be cases in which people buy young chicks—or possibly even hatch eggs themselves—and end up with a rooster. What will happen to that rooster? According to the Stanley Park Ecology Society, there have been cases of roosters being abandoned in Stanley Park, which is not a humane option for dealing with an unwanted male chickens.
There is also the possibility that keeping chickens will attract more predators into the city. Vancouver has a fairly unique situation in that we’ve managed to keep a balance between humans and urban wildlife such as coyotes, raccoons and birds of prey. If someone's chickens get attacked by a coyote, will this result in a cull of predators? This seems like a large risk to take.
Backyard hens can get us closer to “cruelty-free,” but they still require that we support cruel systems. As long as less productive hens are being sent off to slaughter and roosters are being killed at one day old, no system can be considered truly cruelty-free.

Glenn Gaetz is a director of Liberation BC, a Vancouver-based animal rights group (website / blog). He grew up on a small homestead in Vermont with cows, pigs and goats. His experiences with animals led him to work toward bettering the lives of all animals used for human purposes. He has served as a director of Vancouver Rabbit Rescue and Advocacy and done volunteer work with many other animal rights and animal welfare groups. One of his fondest memories is of the time he spent as an intern at Farm Sanctuary’s California shelter, where he cared for all sorts of farm animals, including chickens, turkeys, pigs and goats.
Glenn and his wife raised a broiler rooster rescued from a slaughterhouse in their home for three months before placing him in a permanent home in a sanctuary.
The online version of the Fall/Winter 2011 issue does not seem to be up yet, but I assume it will be soon. Here is the link: http://www.spca.bc.ca/news-and-events/publications/animalsense/
Just a clarification.
Thanks,
how many calories
http://vancouver.ca/COMMSVCS/socialplanning/initiatives/foodpolicy/projects/chickens.htm
In March 2009, City Council instructed staff to develop policy guidelines on allowing backyard chickens in Vancouver. The policy is to have a focus on protecting the health and welfare of citizens and ensuring the humane treatment of backyard hens.
This work is ongoing and until it is complete, backyard hens are still not permitted.
FYI
http://blog.bravebirds.org/archives/52
DOES YOUR DEMOCRACY HAVE A MORAL/ETHICAL BASE ?
CONTRARY OPINIONS ARENT REALLY ACCEPTED IN A DEMOCRACY IF THE MAJORITY ARE OPPOSED TO THEM.
BUT AS LONG AS THE OTHER PERSON IS THE ONE TO SUFFER FROM OUR CORPORATE BELIEFS, NO ONE CARES.
ITS WHEN THEY KICK THE DOORS IN WITH THEIR DEMOCRATICALLY SPONSORED/PAID FOR PARAFINALIA AND SOLE MONOPOLY ON ENFORCEMENT THAT ONE REALISES RIGHTS BENEFITTED FROM RESPONSIBILITIES SURRENDERED FOR INCREASED SENSE OF SECURITY HAS RENDERED US ALL EQUALLY IMPRISONED.
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/05/13/sour-grapes/
Money quote:
"faced with moral demands that we’re not prepared to fully meet—or even to meet to the extent we might be capable of—we find ways of convincing ourselves that the purported value is no value at all. So instead of doing something—not all we ought in princple to do, perhaps, but something—we conclude we’d better not do anything.
[...]
[On the argument] that people who profess to care about animal welfare are just looking for an excuse to engage in moral preening: I see this attitude directed, with surprising frequency, not just to hectoring evangelical vegans, but ethical vegetarians as a class. One possible reason is that ... we’re less comfortable saying that we simply lack the time or inclination to think seriously about the proposition that some widespead behavior is morally problematic. But if a significant number of reasonable people have come to this conclusion, then thinking seriously about the question carries a real risk of being persuaded—and perhaps of feeling obligated to change one’s behavior."
http://food.theatlantic.com/vegetarianismism/the-fervor-of-the-vegan.php
and
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/05/11/vegan-envy/
ps2. more LibBC articles = another irrelevant online magazine.
You mention something about people "missing the point of the objection to this article" but could you clarify what that objection is? I couldn't figure it out from what you wrote.
Thanks!
Almost every time that I am out at an event, tabling or leafleting, and I speak to people about these issues, there are things about animal welfare and animal rights that they did not know. I learn new things every day too. For instance, I learned recently it takes over 3,000 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 single 78 calorie egg. To put that in context, it takes 160 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce an 80 calorie serving of tofu.
I know that the Vancouver Humane Society has had a campaign for several years around the issue of eggs, because most people really don't know the difference between conventional, free-range, free-run, and certified organic eggs. Then if you look at all the different organic standards it gets very confusing. I don't really think that everyone out there knows all of this already. I even saw in the comments that someone was surprised to learn about rooster being killed.
I'm glad that I was asked to write this piece, since it does seem that this information is needed. Our attitudes towards animals seem to exclude their perspective from any discussion of sustainability. Animals share the planet with us - but we do a terrible job of sharing the planet with them.
Yes, they would, and not just meat. I dare Liberation BC to deny it. Liberation BC -- or quite simply, husband-and-wife team Glenn and Joanne -- are "animal rights" activists, not an "animal welfare" organization. Instead of asking strawman questions, you could dig a bit deeper and research the differences between "animal rights" (which would be detrimental, to say the least, to sustainability) and "animal welfare". Some of us are just a little bit wiser to see what Glenn is up to with the above article, which is, yes, offensive, if you've had any contact or even a slight familiarity with Liberation BC's methods of "educating". Animal rights activists often hitch their underlying cause to mainstream concerns -- be it the environment, foie gras, fur, the seal hunt, etc. While there's nothing wrong with those issues, one cannot at the same time ignore what Liberation BC ultimately stands for. Let me ask you this: Why does the above article offers absolutely no suggestions to improve egg production?
Secondly, the article was not about the fact that eating eggs is cruel. The article was about the various designations used in egg packages and looking at what they mean. Is this information you already knew? I certainly didn't. Did you already know what it means when egg packages are marked as "free-range" or "free-run"? What bodies or organizations certify such labels? If you did, great. Thats very impressive. If you didn't, then you learned something. Thought when I talked about animal rights organizations "educating" people, I was mostly refering to Lib BC's other activities. I don't know if you were one of the people posting earlier, but I followed those links and did a little reading. Apparently those people started their little flame war with Glenn after he was out protesting fois gras at Vancouver restautants. That is a way of educating people about an issue that some people would not otherwise know about. Does everyone in the world know how fois gras is produced? Far from it. I didn't. And I wouldnt eat at a restaurant that would serve it after finding out. That is education. Does everyone in the world care whether or not their food is produced by horribly mistreating animals? Obviously not. But some do. And you seem to be calling into question the general validity of people who care about animal welfare advocating that position. And saying that pointing out to people that their food choices contribute to mistreating animals is, in itself, offensive. I couldnt possibly disagree stronger. We already have laws in this country to protect animals. Laws against mistreating house pets, laws against dog fighting. Do you consider these laws unjust and unncessary restrictions on peoples freedom? Should we be able to train dogs to fight each other. Are you offended that some people out there want to tell you what to do by prohibiting dog fighting? Obviously you arent. So you would likely agree that there should be some regulations out there that prevent animal cruelty. Now you and I, and Glenn and Lib BC probably all have different views on how far those regulations should go. I don't think Glenn or Lib BC would support a blanket law banning meat eating. I know I wouldn't. But I would certainly support a law that promoted better treatment of egg chickens. Lots of people would. Apparently, you arent one of them. None of this is any reason to be offended by other peoples opinions. Promoting animal welfare laws has nothing to do with telling anyone how to life their life, and everything to do with education and building political coalitions to promote your preferred public policy views. So please, enough with the faux outrage.
So should an article in a sustainability magazine have focused more on the energy-intensiveness of meat and dairy eating, over the cruelty aspect? Maybe. Would that have offended you any less? From what you have written, I doubt it. That would still be "telling you how to live your life" by advocating a position you disagree with. You seem to already know that eating meat and dairy is more energy intensive and worse for the environment. Does this convince you to eat less meat and dairy? How have you moderated your meat consumption as you have learned this over time? At all? I'd be curious to know. In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of sustainability is learning to live in a way that reduces our carbon footprint. not eating meat is an easy and effective way to do this. Now, are you willing to change any part of your lifestyle to move our economy towards sustainability? Or is that very idea offensive to you?
So here we go - I am a vegan. I am not an animal rights activist in any way. I don't know Glenn and I've never heard of Liberation BC until now. I am a vegan because I am concerned about animal welfare and I view veganism as an efficient way to decrease my carbon footprint. I don't expect anyone else to follow my views and I don't think the state should legislate prohibitions on eating meat in any way. However, I do think it is perfectly acceptable in a democracy to attempt to educate people in a respectful manner about the consequences of their decisions as consumers.
There we go, an argument for veganism from someone other than Glenn. If you have anything intelligent or relevant to add to this conversation, please engage me. I'm happy to discuss and debate this topic respectfully with anyone who wants to.
Speaking if "sustainability"...it is impossible to eat sustainably and consume eggs or meat or any animal products at our current rate. In order to be truly sustainable, we must all reduce our consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is the number one contributor to greenhouse gases. Whereas all the transportation in the world combined (planes, cars, ships, trucks etc) contributes 13% to global greenhouse gasses and animal agriculture contributes a whooping 18%! You cannot have "sustainability" without significantly reducing the number of animals we farm on this planet. 60 billion land animals are raised each year to feed 6 billion people. Just imagine how much blood and feces is being dumped into our rivers and oceans. How is that sustainable?
And one last thing people, unless you're 12 years old, name calling and personal attacks are not compelling ways to win an argument.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3b4f6a45-9360-4de8-9d36-c3fafdbc7335&k=27683
...And compare human struggles and tragedy with the "plight" of farm animals (someone else already posted the link but here it is. See Glenn's "displaced Africans" comment in this blog, link below, in addition to his slavery comment):
http://butterontheendive.ca/2008/08/02/protesting-the-protest/
...And get arrested for "mischief" and obstructing an officer (link below, but see "Endive" link again, because it's more funny):
http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/c1ee8c441b9923e1011b9e23562200a7_Animal_rights_activist_arrested_for_mischief.do.html
...And lie, and harass people on the street. (See above "Endive" link again: Joanne falsely accusing someone of "assault" and calling him a "rapist"; Joanne pretending to be someone else on this blog and trying to defend herself anonymously as "Lex". Damn, you guys liked posting on that blog.)
And subject yourself to constant falling at the Agrifair during a rodeo protest (watch it, Glenn, you might break a bone there, with your vegan diet). When you were standing stubbornly there, with your far-away gaze, were you feeling all heroic? I can just see what was going through your head, along with some dramatic theme music, no doubt. (And nice pet chicken there. Did you really look at a chicken and see something akin to a human slave?)
I dunno. I seem to have all my facts. Maybe I should write an article on ARAs for Hillary, to explain the significant differences between animals rights (ie, the tactics they use, goals, etc) and animal welfare. And then you, Glenn, can comment on it. :)
Yet Another Sour Grape
The problem (and ultimate goal) is moving a critical mass towards sustainability so we, in fact, can make progress. It must be practical, realistic and achievable for progress to be made. Glenn's article was about animal cruelty and the guilt we should feel over eggs. So, when I say Glenn's article is a step in the wrong direction for Granville Online, I mean it generally only resonates with people like you (and I mean that in a positive light; caring, vegan, committed etc.), but that only rallies the converted. Moderates, who will make the most impact, tune out when being preached to and this marginalizes the readership, leaving the goal of mass conversion towards sustainable living at risk.
PS. Thank you for being vegan, I recognize your proportionately greater contribution towards the goal. JR
In my opinion, which admittedly holds little credence, this article was a step in the wrong direction for Granville Online right from the start if this publication's goal is to foster discussions surrounding realistic, achievable "sustainable city living" (your tagline) solutions. There was virtually no point to this article other than for Glenn to express his opinion on animal cruelty...and do his best to make anyone who is not vegan feel culpable.
Is being Vegan more sustainable and closer to cruelty-free? I'm quite convinced that it is while being equally certain that I'll never be vegan with absolutely no remorse. Glenn holds the right to his views; it's simply unfortunate that he was given space in this forum as there exists no shortage of sites out there to give voice to the margins. Certainly, there are those in this discussion board banging pots and pans in admiration of what Glenn had to say but I hazard to assume this is symptomatic of squeaky wheels.
I will grant the discussion on raising chickens in an urban setting was valuable but being preached to about animal cruelty from some marginal guy who adopts foul and calls them intelligent, sentient beings gives me increasingly less reason to read this publication...which is a shame because it is needed in this city. You've done an excellent job with Granville Online and I will be a continued supporter. This is simply feedback from one reader who would like to read articles of value. Sustainability is not about cheerleading for far-left, vegan, foul adopters; that is a zero sum game, no progress...there's only change when moderates find it increasingly relevant and easy to implement into their lives.
What people like Glenn fail to see is that history is filled with people like him and they've made absolutely no impact since the first industrial smokestack was raised.
JR
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1534177/So-who-are-you-calling-bird-brain-Chatter-of-chickens-proves-they-are-brighter-than-we-thought.html
Chickens are able to maintain highly complex social networks, and can recognize each other by sight. They are also able to solve problems and in many ways are smarter than cats and dogs.
If we want to continue killing and eating animals for fun, then we should certainly face up to the fact that these animals certainly don't want to die, certainly don't need to die, and are only dying for our pleasure.
I think that most discussions about urban chicken have mentioned how smart chickens are, how social and fun they can be to be around. I'm sure you've all seen the youtube video of the two chickens that break up a fight between two rabbits.
Oh, and it's "fowl" not "foul." Too many puns out there must have confused you...
My point is that articles like yours marginalize this magazine and detract from its goal. Your preachy, moralistic attitude will dissuade the sensible, moderate audience and Granville Online will be left with a margin group hugging each other in the corner of the room with you as the cheerleader... happy, ethical, dedicated to a cause and completely void of any efficacy towards sustainability.
"Is being Vegan more sustainable and closer to cruelty-free? I'm quite convinced that it is..."
Just because you are uncomfortable with the idea of giving up meat does not in any way invalidate the fact that giving up meat is more sustainable, better for the planet and all of its inhabitants than continuing to eat meat. Any articles that deal with issues of sustainability, no matter how uncomfortable they make you feel, would seem to be appropriate. Would you expect any news publication to hold back on reporting the truth because it might bother some of their readers? Where then would the news be? What would be the value of that information if you knew that they were catering their coverage of issues to people who might be offended by the ideas presented? Not really worth reading, I would think.
This piece was simply about the search for "cruelty-free" eggs. If we are going to eat eggs we have to be fully aware that there is no such thing as a "cruelty-free" egg.
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0901/viewpoint.html
(PS: good article on meat and sustainability)
Are you saying that a responsible owner looks at these loving, complex Asian birds merely as a food source?
Sounds like a good (not) start to responsible "ownership" of another living being...didn't owning other beings end when slavery did?
A community of ideas—a democracy—must be open, transparent and inclusive, where all members feel empowered and safe to contribute. Contrary opinions are vital to any functioning discourse, and only improve the argument. But without taking ownership of your declarations they are all too easily pushed aside and dismissed as the folly of zealots. And that goes for both detractors and the groupies.—Hilary Henegar, Granville Online editor
Excellent article! Thank you for your work for the animals.
Cathy A. Richmond BC
Lets face it, until humans stop creating such great demand for things to eat......until OUR population is under control......food will be produced in the most efficient manner possible.
If someone wants to take control of their own chicken and egg production in their own backyard: more power to them. After all THAT used to be the status quo in your grandparents time, as well as BEING the status quo in most other countries in the world.
It is only our industrialized approach to food production that has led to this "cruelty."
I have raised my own chickens, used their eggs, enjoyed their antics in the garden as they kept the bugs and other pests under control, then slaughtered and eaten them when the time came.....what's the big deal??
I'm against cruelty, but fail to see how home raised chickens fits that label.
Any time we are killing a living, sentient being, there is cruelty. Killing someone who has friends and family and is living an enjoyable life is more certainly an example of cruelty. Cruelty is not only measured by amount of pain inflicted. There is cruelty in betraying the trust of another living being, cruelty in ending the life of someone who is healthy and can live a much longer life.
Just think, if someone were to randomly shoot me, their action would be considered cruel and murderous, even if I died immediately, with no pain.
There is no reason to keep to any status quo that requires ending the lives of beings who are healthy and living a happy life. That it is absolutely unnecessary for any of us reading this to eat eggs means that this death is completely avoidable. How can killing ever not be cruel? I don't understand it.
Good thoughts, though I will note that our current "demand" is highly inflated and does not truly reflect the food needs of our species. The amount of food waste in our country is appalling (at almost every level of production, distribution and consumption).
For tips on how to reduce food waste, check out Diane Selkirk's blog Home [Eco]nomics. —Hilary Henegar, Granville Online editor
Here's where he goes wrong: first assumption -- the idea that "killing the chickens ourselves" is an awful idea. Yes, we would kill the chickens ourselves, in our backyards. Then we would eat them. Uppity urbanites could learn a lot about sustainability from people who raise and harvest their own food. The author assumes that all readers find the idea of chopping a chicken's head off to be horrible - sure, it's not pleasant, but if you want to live sustainable, well, it takes more than just ethical coffee and hybrid cars to really make the grade. There is nothing more sustainable than self-harvested food, my friends!
Second assumption: "would this lead to a cull of predators? This seems like to big a risk to take."
Well, you really don't know do you? You assume. Culling predators is, in fact, an excellent idea, as in many areas - due to mostly to our interference, I'll admit - predator populations have exceeded carrying capacity and are causing havoc on prey species. It's a dirty job, and certainly people like the author would be unwilling to do it, but predator culls (when necessary) benefit the environment as a whole. In the prairies, for example, coyote populations are decimating duck and sage grouse populations. Yet few people want to get their hands dirty and address the problem.
Living green is not always pretty. Sometimes it's ethical gourmet coffee, other times it's composting toilets.
What is at issue here is the idea of "cruelty-free" eggs. One would have to do a lot of semantic juggling to say that killing a healthy and contented animal is not cruel. How can ending a life, unless the animal is suffering immense and unrelenting pain, be anything but cruel?
I grew up on a small farm where we did "harvest" our own animals. Although we used the proper English and called it "killing" or "slaughtering." Harvesting is something you do in the garden. Even the quickest of deaths is cruel, as it tears apart the relationships that one animal has with another, breaks up families by separating a mother and child, and violently ends a life.How can that be anything but cruel? Especially since it is unnecessary to kill animals for food?
If you eat meat, an animal must be killed, and more often than not, that is by a human hand. For myself, I don't have a problem with this per se; what I do have a problem with is the production process that has usurped our ability to be humane in this very natural aspect of the food chain. And the distancing of ourselves from our food source.
If you eat it, it seems you should have the knowledge of what made your meal possible. I'm shocked by how many kids I hear about who've never eaten fresh vegetables or who don't get that pork is a pig.
So in this way, encouraging urban agriculture, including backyard chickens, can be a service to all of us by bringing closer to home the facts of our food. HOWEVER, the responsibility to be a good steward is absolutely important, and I wait with bated breath to learn of the regulations the city will impose on backyard chicken keeping. —Hilary Henegar, Granville Online editor
Leave Your Comment